ptsd Cue For Ptsd Claim?

[usmcman001]

Question-

I had put in a claim for PTSD in early 08 and the claim was closed in Oct 08 for no supporting documents. I am a combat vet with a Combat action ribbon etc. I recieved a letter that stated they needed more evidence and what not. I sent in letters from fmily memebers and friends I was in the service with supporting statements of PTSD. I never was diagnosed with PTSD by the VA. In that fact I never went to the doc at all. After I sent in info About a month later I recieved another letter asking for more documents. I replied with no more information to provide. Shortly after I was denied for PTSD.

I currently have a open claim for PTSD again and was diagnosed by the psych with PTSD. Now just waiting to a rating from VBA. My question is should my claim from 08 been closed so quick and should they have gave me a C&P before a decision? I am trying to see if what I should do and if this a CUE. Also is there anyway to get back dated to that time since I was diagnosed with PTSD for this claim? Thanks

[carlie]

Isnt a dd214 always included no matter what? I would assume they would use as evidence of service etc....

If not I dont think I submitted a copy but I may be wrong.. I will have to go through paper work tomorrow.

usmc,

You did not need to submit your DD214, it's the VA's job to ensure they have it.

My train of thought regarding this is -

since you filed a claim for PTSD the VA decision maker should have looked over the DD214

to see if there were any decorations and/or awards that would show the claim for PTSD to

at least be credible / plausible.

Here's a BVA claim that relates to 38 CFR 3.156 c

As noted, these claims were originally based on allegations

that there was CUE in final March and June 2003 rating

decisions that, in pertinent part, denied service connection

for PTSD, hypertension, bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus,

and denied TDIU. However, in July 2007, the veteran

submitted a June 2007 record from the Navy Personnel Command

(NPC) entitled Transmittal of and/or Entitlement to Awards.

This document states that a review of the veteran's military

records revealed that he was entitled to receive several

medals and ribbons, including the Combat Action Ribbon.

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156© "at any time after VA issues a

decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the

claims file relevant official service department records that

existed and had not been associated with the claims file when

VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim" on

the merits de novo. As receipt of the Combat Action Ribbon

denotes that the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and

entitles him to relaxed evidentiary standards under

38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), his claims

must be reconsidered based on this evidence under 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.156©.

Receipt of this service department evidence

essentially renders the CUE claims moot and any decision made

as a result of this new evidence will subsume the March 2003

and June 2003 decisions. The veteran is not prejudiced by

the Board affording him a broader (and more liberal) scope of

review in considering his claims de novo. The issues have

been characterized accordingly.

A December 2007 Informal Hearing Presentation from the

veteran's representative raises the issue of whether there

was CUE in a September 1957 rating decision that reduced the

rating for service-connected hepatitis. Since this issue has

not been developed for appellate review, it is referred to

the RO for appropriate action.

The issues of entitlement to service connection for

hypertension, bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus, and to

TDIU are REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center

(AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if

any action on his part is required.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The veteran's awards and decorations include the Combat

Action Ribbon.

2. He is shown to have a medical diagnosis of PTSD related to

his experiences in service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Service connection for PTSD is warranted. 38 U.S.C.A.

§§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304,

4.125 (2007).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

A. Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA)

The VCAA describes VA's duty to notify and assist claimants

in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. See 38 U.S.C.A.

§§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102,

3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a). The VCAA applies to the

instant claim.

Upon receipt of a complete or substantially complete

application for benefits, VA is required to notify the

claimant and his or her representative of any information,

and any medical or lay evidence, that is necessary to

substantiate the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.159(b); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002).

Proper VCAA notice must inform the claimant of any

information and evidence not of record (1) that is necessary

to substantiate the claim; (2) that VA will seek to provide;

(3) that the claimant is expected to provide; and (4) must

ask the claimant to provide any evidence in his or her

possession that pertains to the claim. 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.159(b)(1). VCAA notice should be provided to a claimant

before the initial unfavorable agency of original

jurisdiction decision on a claim. Pelegrini v. Principi, 18

Vet. App. 112 (2004).

Since the determination below constitutes a full grant of the

claim of service connection for PTSD, there is no reason to

belabor the impact of the VCAA on this matter, since any

error in notice content or timing is harmless. Furthermore,

as the benefit sought is granted, it is not prejudicial that

the Board is considering and relying upon evidence received

in July 2007 in the first instance.

B. Legal Criteria, Factual Background, and Analysis

Service connection may be granted for disability due to

disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active

military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R.

§§ 3.303, 3.304.

Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence

diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R.

§ 4.125(a) [i.e., a diagnosis under DSM-IV]; a link,

established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and

a stressor event in service; and credible supporting evidence

that the claimed stressor event in service occurred.

38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f).

If the evidence establishes that the veteran engaged in

combat with the enemy and the claimed stressor is related to

that combat, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence

to the contrary, and provided that the claimed stressor is

consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships

of the veteran's service, the veteran's lay testimony alone

may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service

stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f); West v. Brown, 7 Vet. App.

70 (1994).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative

evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the

determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in

resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant.

38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b).

When all of the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for

determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in

relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either

event, or whether a fair preponderance of the evidence is

against the claim, in which case the claim is denied.

Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990).

As noted above, a June 2007 NPC record states that the

veteran was awarded a Combat Action Ribbon (denoting he

engaged in combat). Service personnel records previously

associated with the claims file report the veteran

"[p]articipated in operations against enemy forces in south

and central Korea" from August 1951 to January 1952. The

veteran's DD Form 214 and service personnel records indicate

that during this time frame his military specialty (MOS) was

0311, which was rifleman, (U.S. Marine Corps MOS Manual

(1956), and that he was stationed with the B Company, 1st

AmTrac Battalion. Hence, the Board finds that while the

record from the NPC has not been authenticated, it is

consistent with evidence already of record regarding the

veteran's service. Receipt of the Combat Action Ribbon is

evidence that he engaged in combat with the enemy during

service. His claimed stressors include seeing and helping

wounded and dead soldiers in Korea. As this stressor is

consistent with the circumstances of his combat service, his

lay testimony establishes its occurrence. On August 2002 VA

examination, the examiner provided an Axis I diagnosis of

PTSD and opined that PTSD was related to the veteran's

service as he was exposed to significant stressors therein,

"including repetitive witnessing of severely wounded and

dying soldiers." Additionally, an October 2001 letter from

a VA social worker states that the veteran manifests symptoms

of combat related PTSD under DSM-IV. As this competent

evidence supports the veteran's claim and there is no

evidence to the contrary, service connection for PTSD is

warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

ORDER

Service connection for PTSD is granted.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files1/0803742.txt

[mobie16r]

Like i said before VA is not REQUIRED to give a C&P without the diagnosis of ptsd,"BUT" if he/she at the VA was looking out for the veteran,VA could have order a C&P. It all depent on who you dealing with.Now that you have been diagnose with POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER, you will get a rating if your combat experience is the reason you have ptsd.Don't know what precentage you will get,i don't thank you have a CUE.

mobie16r